hover

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, whether it waits for element visibility, triggers events, or any state changes. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have nuanced behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action and targeting method, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the core usage and a common example. However, it omits behavioral details (e.g., whether hover triggers events, waits for element, or errors on missing element) that an agent might need for reliable execution, especially given the lack of annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema lists two string parameters with no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description compensates by explaining that 'selector' is a CSS selector and 'ref' is a snapshot ref, and implies they are alternatives. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('hover the mouse over an element') and specifies the two methods of targeting (CSS selector or snapshot ref). This distinguishes it from siblings like click, fill, and type, which perform different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a concrete example ('to open a dropdown menu') that signals a common use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use click instead) or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.